Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s school transport policy is flawed and has been wrongly applied. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and it would be reasonable for the complainant to use the Council’s appeal process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council is at fault in failing to recognise that a school is the nearest suitable for the purpose of school transport, thereby denying children access to school transport assistance to which they are entitled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says children in his locality have been wrongly declined school transport assistance, forcing parents and carers to make private arrangements. He argues that the school the children attend, which I will refer to as School A, is the nearest suitable school for the purpose of school transport, rather than the school the Council identifies as such, which I will refer to as School B.
6. Mr X bases his argument on two assertions. First, he argues that the Council’s school transport policy and the admissions policies and catchment areas of local schools do not align, and that the school transport policy is therefore flawed. He says the effect of this misalignment is that School B is not the nearest suitable school, and it has confirmed this to him.
7. In response to this argument, the Council has set out that the admission policies and catchment areas are the responsibility of the schools concerned, and are not relevant for school transport purposes. It says that, in Mr X’s case, the key matter is that School B is closer to his home address than School A according to its assessment method.
8. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate this matter. The Council has properly explained how it decides which school is the nearest suitable. The explanation is in line with its published policy which itself appears to comply with the relevant statutory guidance. I can see no basis on which to conclude that the policy is flawed. There are therefore no grounds for the Ombudsman to find the Council is at fault in basing its school transport decisions on its published policy.
9. Mr X’s second assertion is that, in addition to being flawed, the Council’s school transport policy has been wrongly applied. He says the Council’s distance assessment fails to take account of an available route under which School A is closer to his home address than School B.
10. It is not for the Ombudsman to express a view on this matter. If Mr X, or any unsuccessful applicant for school transport, believes the policy has been misapplied in their case, they have access to the Council’s appeal process. This is the appropriate way to challenge the decision on an individual application and we would expect the process to be used. We will not intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and it would be reasonable for him to use the Council’s appeal process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman